Community Meeting Re: Rezoning Request for St Malo Catholic Center, Pine

Thank you for providing SC. Quite informative. And as Ms Hite said a lot of misrepresentations by the Archdiocese. They want to have the opportunity to expand in the future that would make up to 43 homes look minimal in comparison.

Very good presentations by the owners in the area.

Thank God I sold my home in that area as are many others in the process of doing. It is a death sentence, death trap for Douglas Ranch residents. All it takes is one cigarette.

May I highly recommend that anyone with a well who resides in the area get it tested prior to use by the Archdiocese if they are approved so that they can sue the hell out of the Archdiocese when they impact Douglas Ranch residents and others. You have to have it tested prior to to prove impact.

Good luck to all the owners in the area and to all the people trying to maneuver through traffic on 285, especially if there should be a fire anywhere in the area.

Fire Chief McLaughlin was quite good. The District is not equipped to handle any of it and they get no funding from this boondoggle and he wasn't even allowed to adequately address it.

The Archdiocese should seriously consider how many Catholics like myself will depart when they waste money on such extravagances when so many are suffering. IF they have that much money to waste they have their priorities wrong.

Fight Douglas Ranch residents, Glen Elk, Cedar Circle, Evans, etc. Consider how many people will die when one cigarette takes the place up in flames. It happened at the old St. Malo and it will happen again in a very high risk area. It isn't if, it is when.

Came back to add, good luck to all the residents of the Elk Creek Fire District. Everyone of you should show up at the Jeffco BOCC meetings or send a response to be read into the record. You are going to pay through the nose in assessments for all of this as the Archdiocese is nonprofit and doesn't pay a dime for what you will have to provide. When your assessments skyrocket it will be too late.

Thanks again SC.

Tax exempt organizations are already putting a considerable strain on our fire department. Elk Creek provides uncompensated fire, EMS, and rescue services to Denver Parks, JEFFCO Open Spaces, Staunton State Park, and for highway 285 and other public roads. Elk Creek Fire has the smallest budget of any fire protection district in the county and is already responsible for protecting more public lands than any other fire district in the county.

The proposed retreat will be one more tax exempt entity that will get free fire, EMS, and rescue services funded by district taxpayers. Except in this instance, the retreat will require more services than Elk Creek Fire can possibly provide. The fire protection district doesn't have the ability to fight a fire in a 5 story building and the department cannot afford to buy and man a new $1.5 M ladder engine, especially if it is for the only 5 story building in the district. Providing EMS services for large public gatherings such as the music events on Meyers Ranch already place excessive demands on EMS capability. Covering two large events / gatherings and providing EMS services to the district is probably beyond ELK Creek capability.

This retreat proposal must do a much better job of fitting into a small mountain community that is right in the middle of the front range high wildfire risk area. We aren't Denver, we don't have big infrastructure, big public services, or a big tax base. The proposal needs to adapt to our small community and avoid placing additional burdens on the community to accommodate and adapt to the proposed plans.

I believe most of the fault lies in the County's willingness to approve continued development without adequately considering the impact on limited infrastructure, services, the small tax base, and adequately addressing the impact of proposed development on the fire hazard in the wild land urban interface zone of the front range.

This entire problem would never have happened if the County planning process recognized the unique problems associated with development in the wild land urban interface zone in a small community with a small tax base that is already supporting free services for Denver, JEFFCO, and the State.

JEFFCO needs to revise its planning process, its building codes, and stop assuming that fire, police, EMS, rescue services and public infrastructure will be adequate to support continued development.

I am thankful that they continued to Oct 25th and will meet with Elk Creek Fire Chief McLaughlin.

I am concerned that the Archdiocese in their presentation wants to mitigate the smaller trees which makes sense but they also want to keep the taller 50-60 foot trees around the building as part of their defensible space. That is not defensible space. Doesn't Jeffco have strict requirements on mitigation around buildings for commercial as they do homes requiring that all trees regardless of size must be removed within a certain distance so that there isn't any potential for crowning?

The other major concern is the attempt to build in a saddle and use the draw as a road to the buildings. Both of these areas are major fire prone areas. Fire moves through these locations at a rapid speed. I think Chief McLaughlin mentioned both of these as major issues previously and it seems to have been totally ignored. Because they are going to do some mitigation does not mean it is adequate mitigation as per Jeffco guidelines.

I hope Chief McLaughlin will make it crystal clear that their mitigation plan is totally inadequate, the location of buildings and road is inadequate and the height of the building is inadequate.

I also feel for the owner between Douglas Ranch and the Retreat being drawn into this, wanting to use his property as part of their plan to establish an alternative egress. No discussion with him at this point but definitely discussed in the meeting as a possibility. Poor guy. So much for his quiet isolated property. Just a pawn by the Archdiocese to get what they want. I hope he asks for millions.

Based on the Commissioners comments it looks like it is a done deal if the Archdiocese can work out the issues with the Fire Chief and Douglas Ranch. I hope the people on Evans and Cedar Circle who will have to see this mess will also have some say. The Archdiocese needs to listen closely to all these concerns and stop glossing over these issues.

I take issue with Commissioner Rosier;s comments that the Archdiocese has done all that was needed and he was prepared to make a decision today. The water storage is not nearly adequate. If he listened to the one homeowner who had the article on the old St. Malo, they exhausted all the water that they had trying to put out the fire and the local fire dept did not have the right equipment to reach the height of that building so they had to wait for equipment from a fire department further away while the entire place burned, followed later by a mud slide. Looks like the same thing has the potential to happen here considering 'it isn't if, it is when' the next fire will occur.

Thanks for posting the timeline with limited time it really helps to jump to the areas that I am concerned with.

I find it hard to believe that more people are not commenting on this or going to the meetings, you have a voice let it be heard.

If there are those that cannot make the meetings I am just wondering if there is someone out there collecting your letters to take in or who do we email with concerns.

I applaud the Elk Creek Chief for pointing out how this will raise taxes and such.

To all those on Pinecam and MyMountainTown bulletin boards interested in the proposed Retreat Center on S. Elk Creek Rd. at Shaffers Crossing:

Thanks for your interest and concerns – YES I do mean thanks! You should be interested and keep yourselves informed on what is happening in the community and what is being proposed for the future.

You are right to be concerned about fire and water and sewer and traffic and buildings that fit into the natural environment. We are concerned about those issues as well. We have worked hard from day one to ensure that our plans respect those concerns. We believe that our Forest Management Plan and Fire Flow storage will actually make the area safer. You might disagree and that is your right. We are working with the Fire Chief to address all his concerns.

Some of you have made statements that I believe are either factually untrue or extrapolations that are not warranted. I would like to clear up some of those inaccuracies.

As an aside, but an important issue in conducting a civil discussion, can we all agree to tone down the rhetoric? Please notice that I am not calling anyone a liar, as I believe some have called me and our team. A lie must be both untrue and an attempt to deceive. I try very hard to speak the truth, but I do make mistakes or use the wrong word. I don’t think that I have done that in any discussions of our proposed Retreat Center, but if I have please correct me.

Some of the inaccuracies come from misunderstandings of the difference between the Rezoning and Permitting processes. To put it in layman’s terms (and I am a layman in these matters) Rezoning concerns what generally can be done while Permitting deals with a very specific plan to build “THIS”.

YES we have asked for a Rezoning that will allow a building of 55’ in height (average ground level to average roof height) and YES we have asked that the Rezoning allow for a maximum of 100,000 sq. ft. for our main building.

But NO, the building we are planning will not be 5 stories, but 3 stories plus a garden level (think walk-out basement). According to the way the county considers building height this will be close to 55’ tall. Again, NO, we are not planning on a 100,000 sq. ft. building. Over the past year our planned Adult Retreat building has actually shrunk from just over 42,000 sq. ft. to just under 40,000 sq. ft. Given current building costs, it may need to shrink even more. Why ask for Rezoning to allow for a larger building? We want to reserve the right to expand some years in the future. Do I think that is likely to happen? Possible, but probably not before I retire.

YES we are talking about a building height greater than is seen in this fire district. But NO that does not mean that a “$1.5 million fire truck” will need to be purchased. Denver has buildings over 700’ – much higher than any ladder truck. That is why you have fire rated stairwells and standpipes and hose racks.

YES we are asking for Rezoning to allow a fire pit in Use Area B, but NO we are not planning to have a camping area in Use Area B, merely a fire pit in one of the natural amphitheaters. This would be a program area, not a camping area. And NO the hermitages are not planned for Use Area B or anywhere near the meadow or Elk Creek.

I know that I have not answered all your concerns. I hope that these clarifications have helped to answer some of them and clear up some misunderstandings. Most every Wednesday for the past year I have been at DWs 285 Diner to have a great breakfast (thanks Denis, but I didn’t need those extra 20 pounds!) and to meet with anyone to talk about our proposed Retreat Center. Please come and talk with me. I want to get to meet you, talk about the issues that matter to you, and brainstorm solutions to common concerns.

Archdiocese
(Michael Six)
(720) 417-0503

Archdiocese wrote: To all those on Pinecam and MyMountainTown bulletin boards interested in the proposed Retreat Center on S. Elk Creek Rd. at Shaffers Crossing:

Thanks for your interest and concerns – YES I do mean thanks! You should be interested and keep yourselves informed on what is happening in the community and what is being proposed for the future.

You are right to be concerned about fire and water and sewer and traffic and buildings that fit into the natural environment. We are concerned about those issues as well. We have worked hard from day one to ensure that our plans respect those concerns. We believe that our Forest Management Plan and Fire Flow storage will actually make the area safer. You might disagree and that is your right. We are working with the Fire Chief to address all his concerns.

Some of you have made statements that I believe are either factually untrue or extrapolations that are not warranted. I would like to clear up some of those inaccuracies.

As an aside, but an important issue in conducting a civil discussion, can we all agree to tone down the rhetoric? Please notice that I am not calling anyone a liar, as I believe some have called me and our team. A lie must be both untrue and an attempt to deceive. I try very hard to speak the truth, but I do make mistakes or use the wrong word. I don’t think that I have done that in any discussions of our proposed Retreat Center, but if I have please correct me.

Some of the inaccuracies come from misunderstandings of the difference between the Rezoning and Permitting processes. To put it in layman’s terms (and I am a layman in these matters) Rezoning concerns what generally can be done while Permitting deals with a very specific plan to build “THIS”.

YES we have asked for a Rezoning that will allow a building of 55’ in height (average ground level to average roof height) and YES we have asked that the Rezoning allow for a maximum of 100,000 sq. ft. for our main building.

But NO, the building we are planning will not be 5 stories, but 3 stories plus a garden level (think walk-out basement). According to the way the county considers building height this will be close to 55’ tall. Again, NO, we are not planning on a 100,000 sq. ft. building. Over the past year our planned Adult Retreat building has actually shrunk from just over 42,000 sq. ft. to just under 40,000 sq. ft. Given current building costs, it may need to shrink even more. Why ask for Rezoning to allow for a larger building? We want to reserve the right to expand some years in the future. Do I think that is likely to happen? Possible, but probably not before I retire.

YES we are talking about a building height greater than is seen in this fire district. But NO that does not mean that a “$1.5 million fire truck” will need to be purchased. Denver has buildings over 700’ – much higher than any ladder truck. That is why you have fire rated stairwells and standpipes and hose racks.

YES we are asking for Rezoning to allow a fire pit in Use Area B, but NO we are not planning to have a camping area in Use Area B, merely a fire pit in one of the natural amphitheaters. This would be a program area, not a camping area. And NO the hermitages are not planned for Use Area B or anywhere near the meadow or Elk Creek.

I know that I have not answered all your concerns. I hope that these clarifications have helped to answer some of them and clear up some misunderstandings. Most every Wednesday for the past year I have been at DWs 285 Diner to have a great breakfast (thanks Denis, but I didn’t need those extra 20 pounds!) and to meet with anyone to talk about our proposed Retreat Center. Please come and talk with me. I want to get to meet you, talk about the issues that matter to you, and brainstorm solutions to common concerns.

Archdiocese
(Michael Six)
(720) 417-0503

So if you are not going to build that big of a building then why ask for it? Just trying to understand and thank for posting here.

Ahhh so much to cover and yes misrepresentations. At the meeting several from the Archdiocese said that everything was fine with their meeting with Elk Creek Fire Chief McLaughlin. Not true, not even close and there are so many more I could cover.

To start, please explain the Forest Management Plan and how it complies with Jeffco's Land Use Regulations. The two gentlemen at the BOCC meeting have wonderful credentials but are retired. I don't know of any commercial buildings or homes that have been allowed to keep the number of 50-60 feet trees around the building as part of their defensible space.

quadman wrote:

Archdiocese wrote: To all those on Pinecam and MyMountainTown bulletin boards interested in the proposed Retreat Center on S. Elk Creek Rd. at Shaffers Crossing:

Thanks for your interest and concerns – YES I do mean thanks! You should be interested and keep yourselves informed on what is happening in the community and what is being proposed for the future.

You are right to be concerned about fire and water and sewer and traffic and buildings that fit into the natural environment. We are concerned about those issues as well. We have worked hard from day one to ensure that our plans respect those concerns. We believe that our Forest Management Plan and Fire Flow storage will actually make the area safer. You might disagree and that is your right. We are working with the Fire Chief to address all his concerns.

Some of you have made statements that I believe are either factually untrue or extrapolations that are not warranted. I would like to clear up some of those inaccuracies.

As an aside, but an important issue in conducting a civil discussion, can we all agree to tone down the rhetoric? Please notice that I am not calling anyone a liar, as I believe some have called me and our team. A lie must be both untrue and an attempt to deceive. I try very hard to speak the truth, but I do make mistakes or use the wrong word. I don’t think that I have done that in any discussions of our proposed Retreat Center, but if I have please correct me.

Some of the inaccuracies come from misunderstandings of the difference between the Rezoning and Permitting processes. To put it in layman’s terms (and I am a layman in these matters) Rezoning concerns what generally can be done while Permitting deals with a very specific plan to build “THIS”.

YES we have asked for a Rezoning that will allow a building of 55’ in height (average ground level to average roof height) and YES we have asked that the Rezoning allow for a maximum of 100,000 sq. ft. for our main building.

But NO, the building we are planning will not be 5 stories, but 3 stories plus a garden level (think walk-out basement). According to the way the county considers building height this will be close to 55’ tall. Again, NO, we are not planning on a 100,000 sq. ft. building. Over the past year our planned Adult Retreat building has actually shrunk from just over 42,000 sq. ft. to just under 40,000 sq. ft. Given current building costs, it may need to shrink even more. Why ask for Rezoning to allow for a larger building? We want to reserve the right to expand some years in the future. Do I think that is likely to happen? Possible, but probably not before I retire.

YES we are talking about a building height greater than is seen in this fire district. But NO that does not mean that a “$1.5 million fire truck” will need to be purchased. Denver has buildings over 700’ – much higher than any ladder truck. That is why you have fire rated stairwells and standpipes and hose racks.

YES we are asking for Rezoning to allow a fire pit in Use Area B, but NO we are not planning to have a camping area in Use Area B, merely a fire pit in one of the natural amphitheaters. This would be a program area, not a camping area. And NO the hermitages are not planned for Use Area B or anywhere near the meadow or Elk Creek.

I know that I have not answered all your concerns. I hope that these clarifications have helped to answer some of them and clear up some misunderstandings. Most every Wednesday for the past year I have been at DWs 285 Diner to have a great breakfast (thanks Denis, but I didn’t need those extra 20 pounds!) and to meet with anyone to talk about our proposed Retreat Center. Please come and talk with me. I want to get to meet you, talk about the issues that matter to you, and brainstorm solutions to common concerns.

Archdiocese
(Michael Six)
(720) 417-0503

So if you are not going to build that big of a building then why ask for it? Just trying to understand and thank for posting here.

I would also like an answer to this questions and if you think any of the posters here are telling half truths please point them out.

We are a tough but fair crowd here but please provide documentation backing what you are saying because unlike Pinecam we will do our research. While I know progress happens it should not come at the cost of those of us who have to pay tax dollars and drive on what are I consider dangerous roads (which traffic will increase).

I sent an email to you and as I asked there what are you bringing to the community and will you help us fight our battles to get things taken care of such is the roads and helping the community have their voices heard. Maybe a proper food bank for those that need it.

We are here we are listening you will not please everyone but you have the power to get some of us.

If your going to be a neighbor be a good one!!

One thing that's kind of bothered me all along on this is the "comparison" the Archdiocese and the JeffCo Commission keeps trying to make regarding what the Retreat is going to be compared to what Ron Lewis was going to do to that parcel. The reality is Elk Creek and its environs along South Elk Creek Road are as they are today and have been for many years, planning and zoning and permitting notwithstanding. It is an open meadow with surrounding forest. To make the kind of comparison that keeps being made about the Retreat vis a vis the plans of Ron Lewis is pretty disingenuous....at least it is to me because the Retreat should adapt to its/our environs and not try to be the "lesser of two evils" by comparing itself to what might have been had Ron Lewis been able to see his "dream" realized.

This is not an urban setting and should not be looked at as anything even remotely resembling that.

My two cents.

Sharing at the request of a resident who lives on S. Elk Creek Rd:
CALL TO ACTION:
Large Scale Conference Center Proposed in Residential Community

Jefferson County Commissioners are considering a large scale conference center at Hwy 285 & Elk Creek Road, Shaffer’s Crossing. The facility would include 38,000-100,000 sq. ft. buildings, outdoor fires, thousands of visitors each year, and is not even allowed under existing laws. The conference center is trying to change the rules and re-zone our established residential community.

This massive conference center is unacceptable for this residential area and creates public safety risks YOU MUST BE AWARE OF:

• FIRE OFFICIALS OPPOSE! Fire officials have made clear that our community does not have the resources to protect or contain the fire risk created by such large commercial facilities.

• RECKLESS WILDFIRE RISK! A commercial facility featuring outdoor fires and thousands of visitors who do not understand fire risks is a bad idea. Putting it in a residential area that is one of the highest wildfire high risk zones is an impeachable decision. This project creates a reckless wildfire risk for our entire community.

• THOUSANDS OF VISITORS AND CAMPERS! The initial plan is for several thousand visitors each year with major expansion in the future. This large scale commercial facility is not appropriate in the middle of an existing residential community.

• HIGHEST FATALITY RATE IN REGION! We all know how dangerous the Shaffer’s Crossing and King’s Valley interchange is. Adding thousands of vehicles to the narrow intersection will make it far worse.

Abandoning existing laws in order to add a large scale conference center to a residential area is wrong and threatens the safety of residents and homeowners. Support your mountain neighbors and contact the Commissioners TODAY to tell them St. Malo Conference Facility is wrong for our community:

Commissioner Libby Szabo: EMAIL: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; CALL: 303-271-8525
Commissioner Casey Tighe: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; CALL: 303-271-8525
Commissioner Donald Rosier: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. CALL: 303-271-8525

PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 25 AT JEFFCO ADMIN BUILDING 8AM